Last updated September 24, 2026. Case statuses change; every case links its source. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
Flock Safety’s license plate camera network is being tested in court on 2 main fronts: Fourth Amendment challenges to warrantless, networked ALPR surveillance, and state-law cases over how the data is shared and how contracts were approved. This page tracks each case with dates, claims, and current status.
Schmidt v. City of Norfolk (Fourth Amendment)
The Institute for Justice sued Norfolk, Virginia over its 176-camera Flock network on behalf of 2 residents whose plates were captured hundreds of times in 4 months. In February 2025 the court denied the city’s motion to dismiss (Institute for Justice, February 6, 2025). On January 27, 2026, the judge granted summary judgment for the city, holding the network as configured is constitutional while warning that ALPR systems “could become too intrusive” at some point (Courthouse News, January 2026; WHRO, February 11, 2026). The drivers appealed. The appeal is docketed in the Fourth Circuit as No. 26-1227, and amicus briefs supporting the drivers were filed in April 2026 by the ACLU, ACLU of Virginia, and EFF, among others (ACLU amicus brief, April 20, 2026).
Status: Appeal pending. Oral argument is tentatively scheduled for the week of December 8, 2026 (North Carolina Criminal Law blog, UNC School of Government, September 14, 2026).
Tan v. City of San Jose (Fourth Amendment, class action)
The Institute for Justice filed this federal class action on April 15, 2026 in the Northern District of California on behalf of 3 San Jose residents, challenging the city’s 474-camera network as warrantless mass surveillance of every driver in the city (IJ case page; Reason, April 16, 2026).
Status: Pending. The IJ case page, checked September 24, 2026, lists the complaint as the latest filing and the case as active.
Freeman v. Redfearn (Boulder, state constitution)
Filed in May 2026 in Boulder County District Court by 2 Boulder residents against Police Chief Stephen Redfearn and the department’s records supervisor. The suit alleges the city’s 31 Flock cameras are warrantless mass surveillance and that the department wrongly denied records requests (Boulder Reporting Lab, May 28, 2026; Courthouse News, May 28, 2026).
Status: Pending. No ruling appears in coverage found through September 24, 2026.
California class action v. Flock Safety (SB 34)
Filed February 26, 2026 against Flock itself, alleging violations of California’s SB 34, which bars sharing ALPR data with federal and out-of-state agencies. The complaint cites records showing San Francisco PD’s cameras were searched 1.6 million times by out-of-state agencies in 7 months (case page).
Status: Pending. The plaintiffs’ firm, Gibbs Mura, filed an amended complaint on April 3, 2026, and its case page, checked September 24, 2026, lists no later ruling.
California v. City of El Cajon (state enforcement)
California’s attorney general sued El Cajon on October 3, 2025 for sharing license plate data with out-of-state agencies in violation of SB 34, the first state enforcement suit of its kind against a Flock customer (CA DOJ press release). On January 21, 2026 the attorney general asked San Diego County Superior Court for a writ of mandate ordering the city to stop the sharing (CA DOJ, January 21, 2026), and NBC 7 reported a hearing set for February 13, 2026 (NBC 7 San Diego, January 22, 2026).
Status: Pending. No ruling on the writ appears in coverage found through September 24, 2026.
Cases filed since July 16, 2026
Jimison v. City of Huntington (West Virginia). Filed July 16, 2026 in Cabell County Circuit Court by resident Greg Jimison, represented by the ACLU of West Virginia. The suit says the council approved the $2.1 million Flock contract without the public notice, hearing and procedures the city code requires, and asks the court to declare the contract void (ACLU of West Virginia, July 16, 2026). Status: pending.
Grimmett v. City of Wichita (Kansas). Filed July 29, 2026 in Sedgwick County District Court by machinist Mason Grimmett, represented by the Kansas Justice Institute. The suit argues that the city’s network of nearly 200 cameras is warrantless surveillance barred by the Kansas Constitution and asks the court to stop the program (Kansas Reflector, July 31, 2026; Kansas Justice Institute, August 3, 2026). Status: pending.
Schulte v. Flock Group Inc. (federal class action). Filed August 25, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by Grace Schulte of Dahlonega, on behalf of everyone in the United States whose plate data Flock has collected since January 1, 2024. The complaint pleads invasion of privacy, negligence, negligent design, failure to warn and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Atlanta News First, September 4, 2026). Status: pending.
NoCams Muskego v. Waukesha County (Wisconsin). Filed in September 2026 in Waukesha County Circuit Court by NoCams Muskego, Citizens Defending Liberty and resident Donavan Haidinger, represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, against Waukesha County and 11 of its cities and villages. The suit asks the court to require a warrant before police search the Flock location database (WPR, September 10, 2026; Courthouse News, September 10, 2026). Status: pending.
The Supreme Court context: Chatrie
On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Chatrie v. United States, in an opinion by Justice Kagan, that police use of a geofence warrant to obtain cell phone location records is a search under the Fourth Amendment, and sent the case back to decide whether the warrant was reasonable (SCOTUSblog). Legal commentators immediately asked whether networked ALPR databases are next (Ohio Capital Journal, July 8, 2026). As of September 14, 2026, no court had ruled that Flock camera use violates the Fourth Amendment. On September 9, 2026, a federal judge in California ordered an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress Flock evidence in United States v. Thomas, saying the court needed to learn more about how Flock works (North Carolina Criminal Law blog, September 14, 2026).
Related official findings (not lawsuits)
Illinois’ Secretary of State found Flock allowed US Customs and Border Protection to access Illinois cameras in violation of state law (audit, August 25, 2025). A Washington court ruled Flock data are public records under the state Public Records Act (EFF, November 2025). Senator Ron Wyden’s oversight letters documented undisclosed federal pilot programs (October 2025 letter).
For the contracts behind these networks, see the national tracker and how Flock contracts work. Corrections go through the correction form. We review each correction within 72 hours; most are read the same day.